The judgment established the interpretation and application of the rules governing last grade service eligibility, specifically Rule 12 of Part I, K.S.R. and the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Servants.

V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.

1. Although the matter caused us some amount of anxiety and required some amount of consideration, we are satisfied that the learned Judge was right and that his judgment should be affirmed.

2. The question raised in this writ appeal is whether the writ Petitioner-Respondent was entitled to be appointed as Village Assistant. He was appointed as Chainman by Ext. P-1 order, dated 6th August 1973. That order shows on its face that the Government had reserved 25 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants to be filled up by qualified last grade servants and attenders of the Revenue Department who had put in a minimum period of five years of service in the Revenue Department. 15 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants were set apart for appointment of qualified villageman and 10 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants were left for appointment of qualified last grade servants and Attenders of the Land Revenue, Survey and Land Records Department as Village Assistants. The remaining 50 per cent was to be filled up by direct recruitment. Therefore, on the basis of Ext. P-1, the Petitioner's claim for promotion as Village Assistant must satisfy two conditions; (1) that he was in the Revenue Department and (2) that he was a last grade servant in that Department. Both these were contested. The learned Judge overruled the objections raised against the Petitioner's claims and held that his representations Exts. P-2 and P-4 ventilating his claims for promotion as Village Assistant had been wrongly rejected by the Government by Ext. P-5 order.

3. The learned Judge rightly noticed that despite certain unsatisfactory and unhappy averments made in the Petitioner's petition which may suggest that his appointment as Chainman was in the Survey and Land Records Department, there was ample material to show that he was appointed as Chainman only in the Revenue Department. His original selection and appointment order is not produced. For the Government, reliance is placed on Ext. R-1 which is a copy of the proceedings of the Secretary of the Board or Revenue, dated 6th January 1971. It shows that the Government had directed that the existing contingent and daily rated Chainman will be provisionally promoted to vacancies of Chainman under the Land Tribunals. Item 35 of the enumerated Chainmen is the Petitioner; and in the column showing the office in which he was working the entry is: 'Special Tahsildar's Office, Nedumkandam'. It is difficult to see that this office was part of the Survey and Land Records Department. On the other hand, as contended by counsel for the writ Petitioner, the inference is fairly strong that it was part of the Land Revenue Department. The learned Government Pleader relied on Ext. R-1 to show that that would explain the basis and the real reason for Ext. P-7 order produced with the reply-affidavit to show that the Petitioner was working in the Land Revenue Department. Ext. P-7 order, dated 27th January 1971 are proceedings of the District Collector posting 16 daily rated Chainmen to the Kozhikode District in the existing vacancies. One of them was the writ Petitioner and he is seen posted as temporary Chainman in the Office of the Special Tahsildar, Nedumkandom. While the writ Petitioner would rely on Ext. P-7 to show that he was working in the Land Revenue Department, the Government Pleader would explain it away by relying on Ext. R-1 on the basis of which Ext. P-7 was issued. We are of the opinion that Ext. R-1 does not clearly or conclusively show that the Petitioner was not selected to the Land Revenue Department. On the other hand, as we said, there are sufficient indications that the selection was to that Department. The learned Judge was therefore right in his inference that the Petitioner satisfied one of the conditions of being in the Revenue Department.

4. The next question is: was he a last grade servant? There is acute controversy in regard to this aspect of the